Prismark10 It is now twenty years since the US/UK co-production of Doctor Who: The Movie was broadcast. Shown seven years after the cancellation of the television series and nine years before the relaunched series with Christopher Eccleston, it was the only new Who in the 1990s.It also brings a lot of ingredients that was used in the relaunched series as Russell T Davies studied what it did right and what it did wrong.Sylvester McCoy returns as the seventh Doctor who having been shot and receiving botched hospital treatment regenerates into Paul McGann's eighth doctor.The Tardis lands in San Francisco in 1999, the Master escapes in a snakelike form from the Tardis and plans to take control of the Eye of Harmony once he has occupied the body of a paramedic (Eric Roberts). The Doctor must find a beryllium atomic clock and stop the Master with the help of Dr Grace Holloway.British director Geoffrey Sax made use of the higher budget with good use of special effects even though he was hampered with a reduced number of shooting days. The Tardis is much bigger but I guess the HG Wells like interior setting does not make it look like a Gallifreyan time machine. The visuals were grand and obviously some of the morphing techniques were inspired by films such as Terminator 2.The casting of Paul McGann was the master stroke, with the 60 minutes screen time he had, you really felt that he was the Doctor, a Byronesque romantic (he even got to have a kiss) and man of action, it was a shame we have seen so little of McGann's time lord apart from the mini adventure, The Night of the Doctor; although there is plenty of Eighth Doctor audio adventures.I also liked the malevolent interpretation of the Master by Eric Roberts who really pushes up the dial of campiness when he puts on the time lord regalia. He shifted the emphasis of the Master from the moustache twirling villain of Anthony Ainley and it has been carried on by the subsequent Master's since then, male or female.The story was not that great, you felt it needed a bit more reworking and it had rather a lot of continuity which was fine for fans of the shows but what about new viewers? A point not lost in the 2005 re-continuation which started afresh and only added continuity in small measures over subsequent seasons.Some of the elements of the television film might had introduced a few groans. The cloaking device to describe the Tardis chameleon circuit and the Doctor being half human. However it was a lot less Americanised than people feared and had lots of links to the preceding series.There were a segment of fans who were disappointed after this was shown in 1996, yet the movie received very good viewing figures in the UK and two decades on it was worth revisiting McGann's outing.

Sasha Stanojevic The only thing good about this movie was Paul McGann... I can almost see him as the doctor. He has the charm to be the doctor, but other than that, bad. I mean, the Doctor was shot, then he was romantically involved with his companion who for a real doctor wasn't that good, he as a doctor was complete fool almost whole movie... Disaster! The doctor, the "real" doctor has that charisma around him that made you believe in him, he is brilliant, always 10 steps ahead over everybody else even when he's regenerating. Doctor is not just good looking, the way he does things is what makes him so great. He doesn't like guns. And most of all he is not half-human. Very bad try.

thecodydawson First of all: I am a mega Who fan, and would never want to diminish the awesomeness that is Doctor Who, but; these are still my opinions: While I have watched the movie twice purely out of loving Doctor Who (and trying to grasp the personality of the eighth incarnation), I do not LOVE this movie. First of all, America should have never tried to revive a purely British Sci-Fi show in the first place. (I'm American myself, and even I think this was a bad idea!) They literally urinated all over the character of both The Doctor, and the Master. Okay, to make this review simpler, I will do pros/cons.Pros (or "good things" about the movie):Paul McGann. Paul McGann wonderfully portrayed a sexy, suave Doctor. He was gorgeous, and brilliant. The Master. Once he stole a human body (*eye rolling*), he was pretty Master-y. Even stopping to dress up when so he could look the part to steal the Doctor's body or lives or whatever.The companions. Grace Holloway and Chang Lee were fun characters. A surgeon and a street thug were pretty good ideas to pair up with our favorite Time Lord.Cons (or "bad things" about the movie):Half-Human: The eighth incarnation is apparently half human? First of all, they never fully explain that crap. (It might not have been a terrible idea if they would have.) It was unnecessary, and not well done.Snot-Snake ghost crap: So the Master has all his lives taken away (haha cool punishment!), but yet is magically able to become a snot looking snaking ghost and break out of his little grave and possess someone, LITERALLY. This was never explained, since he wasn't shown to be able to that before! (Also, he has quite a bit stronger psychic abilities than I have ever seen a Time Lord have.The Eye of Harmony: New TARDIS part, I think. But nevertheless, I wished they would have just used the heart of the TARDIS as the plot device that The Master opened instead of adding that. It didn't make a ton of sense in the story and fell pretty flat with me. (Even Steven Moffat had negative comments about this and The Master snake of snot ability thing!)Seven-to-Eight: Seven's regeneration was kind of cool, but, shooting the Doctor to kill him off? Well shooting which caused a surgery and what not, but still.. That kind of craps on one of the most entertaining staples of the show! (The Doctor's ability to make whimsical speeches to get out of trouble.) Overall, not the best way to regenerate The Doctor:/Anyhow, those are my opinions. Sorry if I offended any Whovians! I still like the movie, but I just don't quite LOVE it. Also, I post Doctor Who on Instagram! Follow me if you would like: my user is: November23rd1963.

kulaboy America made Doctor Who. And it's bad. This is bad. It's horrible. I love Doctor Who, and have for a very long time. I watched this in 1996, as some kind of a pilot for Fox, and it stunk so bad. Where do I start, and how do I end? It's American made, to begin, so you know it will be bad because they are adapting a British production. So they insult it with American filmmaking. Asian gangs kill the Doctor? Please. Generic Asian actor saving him? Please. How is this story canon to the Doctor Who time line? Because it has Sylvester McCoy in it? I liked Paul McGann, a great actor from "Withnail & I." But lordy, using Eric Roberts to become the Master, yikes. And seeing the Doctor with a make-out scene. This is so American made, watered down to try and sell. Horrible. It's a painful excuse for a story. The ONLY good thing to come of this wretched lousy production (though, cool to see Will Sasso in it) is that it probably helped the 2005 revival of the show. But man, America really knows how to make bad, generic, bland TV. This is just CSI with science fiction in it. Avoid at all costs. This is not Doctor Who, this is bad Fox TV. I will never consider this canon.